If we're going to be serious about treaty commitments, then we have to be serious about all treaty commitments -- the commitments where there's an actual invasion going on that legally requires US action, now, and not just those more-fun-to-chat-about hypothetical future invasions.

Which are safer to discuss politically, of course, because no US troops are currently demanded for the cause.

In the meantime, the unchastened neocons choose to selectively forget that the United States made security guarantees to Ukraine, promising to protect it in case of Russian invasion, and we have chosen to ignore those obligations.

And I don't hear the neocons squawking much about that. Because, to honor those obligations would require immediate US entry into a war against Russia, which would be incredibly unpopular.

So instead they jerk themselves off about fantasy future hypotheticals about Montenegro.

How about talking about the obligations we're currently in default of honoring, neocons?

---

The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion.

Russia has interfered and has, for all practical purposes, invaded.

So why aren't the neocons demanding a declaration of war against Russia?

Oh, for the usual reasons. They're not serious people. They like talking tough but they understand that their prescriptions are wildly unpopular, so they don't really push very hard for much action; they mostly just play the weakling's favorite game talking the toughest without actually trying to get into a fight.

---

Which other countries are we not willing to sacrifice the last non-DC-resident-life for? Any others? Or is it just Ukraine?

More: How About Turkey? Are We Willing to Really Go to War on Behalf of the Islamist Country and NATO Member Turkey?

Not WE; obama chose to ignore them. Once he let them in, it's hell to pay to root them out. Hard to even know whom to shoot at, whom to bomb. Nope. Too late to stop the invasion; too dicey to try to reverse it. History must judge obama on this. And the Ukrainians and Montenegrans, et al, are tasked with any escapes/reversals of the status quo.

The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion

Except the President cannot, alone, guarantee anything.

He is teh President of the united STATES. Going to war involves the STATES intimately, so to make a TREATY (which could guarantee something), the agreement of 2/3 of the Senate, which represents the STATES, is required.

Of course, the Sink Emperor never submitted a treaty or anything like one to the Senate for ratification on the Ukraine matter, so the TRUTH is - WE never promised them anything, and we don't owe them anything.

” made security guarantees to Ukraine, promising to protect it in case of Russian invasion, and we have chosen to ignore those obligations”

When the government fell to a coup, all deals with the old government were over. We never made any deal with the coup leaders. And when you throw a coup, you don’t automatically gain everything the old nation had. You only get to control what you can grab by force, and everyone else has the same right to grab by force that the coup leaders used.
That’s basically it.

It’s also the reason confederate money won’t work at the store anymore.

“The US asked Ukraine to give up its huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that we would protect their independence and territorial integrity from Russian interference or invasion...........”Russia has interfered and has, for all practical purposes, invaded.........”So why aren’t the neocons demanding a declaration of war against Russia?”

It was not a treaty. It was merely a political agreement a U.S. president signed all by themself and never signed as a treaty and never submitted to Congress to approve like a treaty. So it does not have the legal standing that a formal signed and agreed to treaty has, under U.S. law. In U.S. law a formal treaty signed by a president and submitted and agreed to by Congress is as “hard” a law as the Constitution. But that is not waht the political agreement with Ukriane was. Functionally, as far as the law, the only president that might have cause to follow a mere political agreement is just the president that signs it. That is really more of “moral” than legal obligation, and the presidents that follow can (a) deny it and (b) ignore it - it has no legal hold on them.

Now you see why Obama’s failure to cement the “Iran deal” as a treaty, made it easy for Trump to disavow it - it wasn’t a treaty.

The one with all the “Little Green Men” wearing Russian uniforms without insignias who invaded east Ukraine.

More than 10,000 people are dead and short of heavy Russia direct heavy equipment and air cover, they are not advancing.

Sometimes people don’t care about such matters but Ace makes a fine point.
Last summer I met a woman from that area and she was very concerned that Russia “Little Green Men” army would try to advance on the town where her family lived.

17
posted on 07/18/2018 2:58:54 PM PDT
by romanesq
(For George Soros so loved the world, he gave us Obama)

The United States plus NATO now has troops war gaming in the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine among other regional countries. It is quite historic and unprecedented. Russia must be going nuts behind closed doors.

18
posted on 07/18/2018 3:38:39 PM PDT
by shanover
(...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.-S.Adams)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.